wondering about the knife

wondering about the knife

I've seen both movies and read *almost* every word on the wm3.org site, but I haven't seen an answer to this question: After looking for such a short time for a knife, the dive team recovered one in the water behind Jason's house. Was it ever said in court why they stopped after finding it? From what I've read, it seems as though it wasn't uncommon for people to use that area as a dumping ground. There could be numerous knives there, so how could they be so sure they had one that could have been used in the murders?

A. The diver took that knife in with him, stayed down long enough to make it seem real and brought it back up. The diver owned a diver shop that also sold knives. Fogleman supposedly had a "hunch" and went looking in that lake, AFTER calling the news media to come cover the event. Pretty damn strong hunch, I think.

B. The knife was in there, along with whatever else anyone had tossed in there for ages, but they only needed ONE knife to appear sinister for the jury. Even the prosecution admitted they had no way to tie that knife to the murders. It didn't seem to match any of the wounds, despite Fogleman's grapefruit demo, which was IMHO a gross misuse of closing argument.

C. The diver would have brought up anything that could be used, including any old TV sets or appliances, and they would have claimed that the item was used to beat the children.

D. Whoever actually committed the murders threw that knife there, knowing that Baldwin had been arrested and that it would help steer suspicion away from themself.

I'd like to think that it's a coincidence, but then again, I'd like to think that the judge, cops, and prosecution will hold a press conference to apologize for what they've done...and I don't see that happening in this lifetime. Since everyone who had anything to do with the prosecution was determined to put D, J and J in prison, it wouldn't surprise me if they found a diver to go along with it as well.

Now for my next question: The testimony of the kid who Jason supposedly confessed to, (I think his name is Michael Carson) seemed to be what the jury needed to hear to find him guilty...since they hadn't heard anything else that would "prove" that he was involved. What reason did the judge give for not allowing Michael Carson's background? His personal reason for disallowing it in court seems obvious, but he must have had to give a reason for his decision to the defense attorneys.

Also, after watching PL1& 2 and reading up on the case, apparently I don't know a thing about our judicial system. I was under the impression that when someone appeals their case, it's like starting over at the beginning...with a jury and a judge who haven't been involved in the case. If a defendent feels that his attorney isn't representing him properly, he has the right to request a different attorney if he can prove why he needs one, correct? Why can't defense attorneys request a different judge if they feel the present judge is being bias in his decisions (ruling on objections, deciding on what should or shouldn't be allowed in as evidence, and allowing "experts" to be called in for testimony when it's obvious that they aren't an expert - specifically the testimony regarding cultism)? In my opinion, Burnett should have never been allowed to have anything to do with the appeal since his mind was already made up regarding their guilt or innocence.

To answer questions somewhat backwards, in the state of Arkansas, as is true in some other states as well, the first appeals must go back through the original trial judge, who from his/her involvement with the case so far is supposed to be more aware of possible incorrect actions taken during the trial. That the incorrect actions might actually include errors made by the judge himself and that he would be least likely to recognize such errors or admit to them during the appeals process seems not to have entered the mind of the framers of this argument, however.

The only reason I am aware of that was given for excluding the testimony of Williams, the counselor who advised that he himself was the likely source of the information Carson was probably going to submit as having come from Jason, was that as a counselor anything he might say about a former client was privileged information and could not be divulged publically without the client's permission.

BC has theorized that perhaps the diver took the knife down with him: it is also possible that someone else, such as Michael Carson or perhaps a supporter of the prosecution team, might have thrown the knife in there and then gave confidential information he was certain he'd heard that Jason was likely to get rid of anything he might be concerned about being used against him by throwing it into the lake.

I know that survival knives are not uncommon in tackle boxes--Big Bro got into lots of trouble when our parents learned he had taken Dad's service issue survival knife with the fishing gear in the handle out fishing with him and managed to lose it by dropping it into the lake. That other people fishing on the Lakeshore lake might have lost it out of a rowboat or off raft is certainly not unlikely. And, as the pier behind the cluster of trailers including Jason's was the only one in that particular area, it was possible anyone might have thrown such a knife out there from that pier. However, as the lake isn't particularly large, it could potentially have been thrown from elsewhere as well.

"Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." LOTR

Actually, were you looking for a reason that the judge should have given the defense team regarding Carson and not just the jury? Your question kind of read that way. Larner is right on with what she said, but, if I'm not mistaken, Mr. Carson has snitched before.......I think that may have held some weight on some issues as well.

As far as the knife goes; have you seen the ariel shots of the lake they were found in? If not, you HAVE to see it; you'll die. It's square and surrounded by about 1,000 trailers. It will forever remain a mystery as to why they were allowed to enter into evidence a knife they found after less than an hour of looking (in a lake that probably has 100 knives in it), that doesn't have a SPECK of DNA on it, and doesn't even match the knife in Jessie's statement.

These kids just weren't pro enough to have gotten all the DNA off of that knife, if it had really been the murder weapon, before they tossed it (which we know they didn't). Hell, there are many heavy duty cleaners that won't even remove DNA comletely......

Yes, I can see them at Jason's house now, discussing the merits of acid versus WD40.

sigh

Hatreds do not ever cease in this world by hating, but by love; this is an eternal truth.....Overcome anger by love, overcome evil by good.Overcome the miser by giving, overcome the liar by the truth. ~Buddha~